Editorial Coverage of the McComish v. Bennett Supreme Court Decision

Newspapers from all over the country have been opining on Monday's Supreme Court decision in McComish v. Bennettthat struck down one provision of some existing Clean Elections systems, while upholding the constitutionality of public financing programs in general.

Here's a round up of editorials so far:

USA Today: "So the big news from Monday's ruling wasn't that the Arizona law was struck down, but that the majority said it had no interest in killing public financing altogether. For anyone fed up with government going to the highest bidder, that's reassuring."

New York Times: "The ruling left in place other public financing systems without such trigger provisions, including public financing for presidential elections. It shows, however, how little the court cares about the interest of citizens in Arizona or elsewhere in keeping their electoral politics clean."

Washington Post: "But the court turned the First Amendment on its head in rejecting the rest of the Arizona system. The law did not squelch speech; it encouraged it — all the better for voters, who were given a broader array of candidates from which to choose."

From Maine--The Sun Journal:"To the court, it was less about protecting the little guy's right to be heard than preserving the big guy's ability to dominate the conversation."

Arizona Daily Sun: "We think the real losers are the voters of Arizona, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court that has weakened badly needed and broadly supported election reform on behalf of a narrow, privately funded minority. We hope Arizona voters will support Clean Elections even more vigorously, not less."

From Kentucky--The Courier Journal: "Preposterously, the majority (which at least did not strike down the constitutionality of public financing) argued that the law suppressed free speech, because privately financed candidates might restrict their campaigning in order to avoid allowing opponents to qualify for the extra money. Say what?"